IN THE SOUTH.

lntroduction.-·Pr(lvions to the Civil War there were muny brgo formH in tho South whicll were mostly workod hy ::ihwo l1thor. Theso were ordinarily called pltmLtttio111:1. 'l'horo Wtts no shmp lino of distinction ttt tlmt timo, nor il'l thoro at })rosent, between plan.tatfon:-i 1iml othor :ftmns, the torm "plantation" being appliod simply to largo ftums usually comprising sovornl hundrod or ovml. thousands of acres. Prior to tho WtlJ.' t.itwh planiltttion Wits, of eourse, a single agricultural unH nud wu.s so roport;od hy the census, being counted HH 0110 of tltt) :fttr1m1 of the eountry. During t.110 period of reconstruction after the Ci~il Wtw tho ownorH of tho plm1tatio11s largely tried to work thorn by hiring fohor. A movement soon began, howovor, for t.lte l'lll h,;t.it.ution of tho tenant system of oper11,tfo11. Umhw this system a plantation was sub-· dividod iut;o l:lmu.Jl trn.ots·~··nornmonly called "parcels" or "cnrt8" mwh of whbh was operated by a tenant. The tell.lt,lltl3 worti dosig1uit;od by various terms, such as "tiroppm·," "st.11,nding renter," and the like. Sh1ct} t.horo woro mmsiderttble numbers of tenant f 1u·ms in t.ho Nort.h us woll na in t.he South, the Census Buron.11 very rn1.tnmlly ndop·Lml tJ1e pmctice of t;reating tho tommt :forms :in tho South in the same manner as thoso :in t.lw Norl.h; t.hn.t. ifi t.o stw, Ol\Chtract of land oporal.od hy n. t.tinunt wns trmitotl as n. separate farm. As It nrntt0l' or foci., hOW{\VOl', n. largo proportion of the te1uin'Ls in t.lw 8ou t.h 1wt.u1~lly occupied a very different oconomic pmdt.ion :l'rom t.lutt i1sually occupied b! tenants in <>thor pn:rtH of U\l\ eoLmtry. Tho pliintat10n as 11 \miL i'o.t• gonnr11.l purpmm1:1 or admi11istrn.tio11 has not disapp•ou.rtitl, 11.nd in mm1y mises the tenants on ~l~n­ ttttions n.ro 1:-mhj(11.1Lml to quiLe tts complet.e super'V!s1on by ·tho ownor, gmwml lmif:loe, or manager as that to which t.110 hirml bbtn•ors t1.r<c1 subjected on large farms in the Nc>l't.lt n.J.Hl W(lst.. Where ·this is the case a ten-· ant is very Himiln.r in hii:1 oconmuic ~osition to t~e hired fiU'l.n ln,boror, imwtimtlly tho only ch:fference bemg that he 0011iinm1 hiH work to u. part:imtlar parcel of land which ho work1;1 by himself and tha·t he is paid by a shu,re of t.J.w <"rop insLond of by wages. There are ~so som~ plantatiout:l iu the South which a.re opei·ated by ~rec~ labor. The distinction drawn in popular speech is still based on the size of the agricultural unit and not on the form of organization. Significance of statistics of plantations.-From what has been said it is evident that the statistics of agriculture for the South, when each teD11J1t holding is treated as a separate farm, are ia some respects not comparable with those for other parts of the country. In the North an9. the West. a tenacnt farm is very similar in its method of operation to a farm operated by the owner himself. The owner ordinarily exarcises vary .littJe supervision over the ope.rations of the tenant, and the latter has substantially an indepoodoo.t economic status. Tenant farms in th.e North aad West ate· in general quite as large as the farms operated by their owners, and the tenant farmer often employs hired labor to assist him. In the South., on the other hand, a -very large proportion of the tenant farms are decidedly small, conta.ining no more land ·than can be effectively worked by the tenant alone, with perhaps the assistance o~ his own family. :Moreover, many, though not all, of the tenants are sulr jectecl to very thorough supervision by the owner or manager of the plantation of which the farm is & part. As the result of this difference in conditions, the average size of farms in the South, when each separate tenant farm is counted as a unit, is very much less than in the North or the West, . and the statistics give an impression which does not correspond to actual conditions. The effect of the practice of the Census Bureau in treating each tenant farm in the South as a separate unit is brought out to some extent by a compa.nson of the changes in the number of farms in that section during the last 50 years with the changes in farm tliCl"Ell!lg8 and the -value off arm land a.nd buildings. In order to permit such a comparison Table 1 ~ pre:i:ented, which shows, for the 11 Southern states m which the plantation system is of importance taken together, the number and total and improved acreage of .f~ as reported at each census from 1850 to 1910, inclUSive,

Definition of a tenant plantation.-~-As idready Ht.1it.11d tho dnlinit.ion of tt phm!.til!inn. :in populttr usage in tlw 8outh is p.rhxuwily lrnsecl on t;ho size of the agri-oulLuml unit! 1t1Hl not on. its .m.ct.h.od. of orgmdzn.tion. 'l'horo would, howt\vor, ho no pn.rtinuln.r ntili1;y in proi:H:)n.ting sta.tisti<iA :for plmtt11tl '.ions, nwrnly in tho sense of la.rge fttrms, in tho South. nny moro folly thnn they 1u·o prosont()d :fo.t• ln,rgo f A.l' llll::l elsowhoro. So for as a p.ln.n(.n,tion h~ 01lot·n.tt1d by hirod ltd>ol', it; differs in no AigniHcn,aL l'OHJHICt fl'orn. 11Hgo fn,rml:'l opm·iitod by hired ltthnr olKowltoro, tind thn mllro nn.mo "plm1hat1ion" givm1 no n.dded. i·dgnilion.nco to tlw 11grieultural unit. IDtwh. pln,ntn.tion  This definition, in the first place, eliminates from considern,tion as plantations groups of tenant farms which 1tro not contiguous. In the South as in the North, rL singlo in;livi~lual may own seve;al separate fnrms onch of wlnch rn leased to a tenant; but it is obvious that those holdings, taken as a whole in no t . ] . ' sonso cons ·,1tnto tL p . 1mtat10n In the tables which follow the term "landlord" is usecl to designate the owner of the plantation or the person who, as general lessee or local manager or overseer, represents the o-wner in the management of the plantation, while the term "tenant" refers to any individual who leases a tract of land on the plantation and pays for its use a share of the crops, or a fixed amount of money, of cotton, or of other products. The acreage retained by the landlord together with the total acreage of all the tenants make up the acreage of the plantation. All land of every description in the plantation which is not leased or subleased to tenants constitutes the landlord's part of the plantation. Method of investigation of plantations and scope of the statistios.-The special investigation of plantations undertaken by the Census Bureau in HllO was the first that had ever been made by this burea.iu 1 although, of course, prior to the Civil War the agriculturru stati5tics treated plantations as farms along with the other farms of the country. In its conduct of the plants. ti.on investigation in 1910 this bureau made use of a special plantation schedule in addition to the ordinary agricultural schedule. A. copy of this special schedule is presented on page 925. In addition to making use of this plantation schedule the Census Bureau continued the practice of previous censuse,s in obtaining a separate agricultural schedule for each farm in the plmtation; that is to say, one schedule for each tenant fmn and one for the land retained by the landlord. These general agricultural schedules for the tenant farms were, under the instructions to the enumerators, to be fillecl out by interviewing the tenants themselves, although: doubtless in some cases at least part of the inf orination for them was furnished by the landlord. The plantation schedule, which was also placed in the hands of the enumerators, was to be filled ou~ by inte~ viewing the landlord or his repres?ntative. This schedule called for information regardmg the plantt1rtion as a whole, regarding the land 7etained by the landlord for his own use, a.nd regaxding each tenant holding . .
The plantatiOn schedules obtamed from l~dlords were carefully compared with the .genera.I a.grwultural schedules obtained for the farms m the same plantat ' . In fact one of the objects of the use of the.plan-t~~~on schedule was to furnish a check !1-pon tl:e ~~s t ed by the tenants and also to av01d cluphcatwn ID ~~e~:U,tistics. A.t prior censuses con.i;ideraulc difficulty encountered from the fact that owners of planta-:~~s, misunderstanding the inquiry', not inf:equen~ly ave information regarding the ~ntll'e plan~ation, while !t the same time the information regarding the laml o orated by tenants was secured :from the tenants, tE s involving duplication of acreage, value of farm pr~perty, and even of the production of crops and other agricultural products.

EXTENT OF TJIE
On 11toso tml.n.nt plti,niiat.io11s tho forms rotn.ined ai1d opol·atod by fondlord1::1 cont. ttiu  PLANTATIONS IN THE SOUTH. 881 vahrn of this land with its buildings was $256,494,000. Only. 26.2 per cont of all the land in the landlord farms was improved, much being woodland and other land yet to be opened to cultivation or was incapable of cultivation. Tho 1wero.ge foriu retained by the landlord was 330.9 acres. 'l'he land and bujldings of this .farm were valued on th0 average at $6,564, with less than 18 per cent representing buildings. With more than four-fifths of its value in land and almost three-fourths of its acreage still unimproved, the average value of land and buildings per acre for the landlord farm was only $19.8'1.
Besides the farms of landlords, on these tenant phu1tations, there were also 398,905 farms operated by tenm1ts. 'l'hese tenant farms covered 15,367,398 acres of farm land-54.3 per cent of the total plantation acreage-of which 12,452,323 acres, or 81 per cent, were improved. The improved land irt tenant farms represented 78.6 per cent of the total improved acreage of the plantations. The · tenant farms were valued at $420,309,000, or 62.1 p~r cent of the total value of tho plantations. The average tenant farm conto.inecl only 38.5 acres and of this acreage 31.2 were improved. Its value in land and buildings was little more than $1,000, of.which only-$179 represented buildings, yet its average vo.lue per ac:i;e w~s $27. 35. The most fertile land on the plantations is us~ally leased to tenants.
. Thero wore thus on tho tenant plantations of the soleC1iiecl counties more iihan ten times as many tenant farms as farms of landlords;. yet the total acreage of the tenant farms was not ve.ry much greater than that of the landlord farms, the average size of tenant farms being much loss than that of the landlord farms. !he tenant farms, however, were nearly all under cultiv~ tion, while only a little over one-fourth o~ th~ land m the lnndlord farms wo.s improved. . Tlns difference ·Can l.>e 1 wcounted for by the fact that ~he. ten~ut usmtlly loasos only such bnd as he can put mto acii1vc uso. 'l'his is tho "law of the la:nd" on the larger and more closely supervised plantat10ns.

48381°~13~~56
While the average farm of the landlord cont,ained more than eight times as may acres of land as that of th~ t.enant and had an average value of land and buildings per farm six times as gre,at, the average value of land and buildings per acre was hlghest in tenant farms. The higher value of tenant fanns per acre was doubtless due principally t<> their larger proportion of improved land.
liO l.enlmts and over.
The n,verage tenant farm on these plantations con-: tained only 38.5 acres of land, of which 31.2 acres were improved. The average value of the land and buildings of the tenant farm was $1,054, of which only $179 represented the value of builclings. The average value of land and buildings per acre, however, $27 .35, was decidedly higher than that for the land retained by bhe landlords, this being the natural result of the fact bhn.t the greater part of the ln.nd in tenant farms is impi·ovecl and that the most fertile land on plantations is usually leased to tenants. 21 There are very material differences between the averages shown in the table for the plantatio!llS with complete reports and those for the planta.tions without complete reports, particularly with respect to the J.an,dlord farms. The average plantation with a complete report was very much larger than the .average pilitntation without a complete report, but it contamed eomp&rilr tively little more improved land, the pereen.tage of farm land improved being much lO'W'er. The average value of land and buildings for the plantations with complete reports was $19,879, as compared with $13,972 for those without complete reports. The average value per acre, however, was considembly hlgher for the plantations without complete reports, $26.04, as compared with $22.92 for the plantations with complete reports, a difference naturally resulting from the greater proportion of improved land m pla;ntations of the :first-named class.